Is there a Solution to Gun crime?

No, i am not; i actually have a clue and a Cause. It is usually those of your point of view who try to convince me with only appeals to ignorance.

 

One should be careful not to let their cause interfere with their clue. But, ignorance has a cure! Enlighten me about that phrase and I will be freed of my shackles.

 

Only our federal Congress is delegated the authority to prescribe, wellness of regulation for the Militia of the United States.

 

Non-responsive. Wellness of regulation is NOT prescribed; it is a state of being.

So, answer the question: What did the phrase 'well-regulated' mean to those who wrote it into the 2A?

 

Because of what you've been saying. If any arms need to be
regulated, which the Constitution doesn't mention by the way, then all
instruments that can be used for defense should be regulated, that's
what you've been saying.

By the way, the well regulated militia is people like you and I who
shouldn't have any restrictions upon the arms they bear.

 

You may be missing a clue and a Cause; my response was responsive--only our federal Congress can prescribe, wellness of regulation for the Militia of the United States.

- - - Updated - - -

Only a well regulated Militia is enumerated as necessary to the security of a free State.

 

By your definition, China and North Korea are free states. Good job.

 

One last chance... I'll speak slowly for you:

What... did... the... phrase... 'well-regulated'... mean... to... those... who... wrote... it...?

 

I am referring to our Second Amendment.

 

Oh! Oh! I know.

Well regulated means well disciplined and proficient with weapons. It doesn't mean heavily controlled by an overbearing federal government.

My interpretation:
A disciplined and proficient militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to own and carry arms shall not be infringed.

 

I...doesn't...matter, ... simply...because...only...our...federal...Congress...can... prescribe... wellness...of...regulation...for... the...Militia...of...the...United...States.

 

YAHTZEE! You get the prize.

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
​

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
​

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
​

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
​

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
​

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
​

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.

So, establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only NOT the intent in using the phrase 'well-regulated' in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

And that's why it DOES matter.

 

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws:

 

The 2A makes reference to the militia in the first half, and further clarifies 'the militia' as 'the people' in the second half. The militia and you and I; the people, are one in the same. And the right of the people (the militia) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If I have deciphered your riddle properly, any 'Federal congress' who is 'prescribing wellness of regulation' on the militia (the people) is an infringing on the people's 2A rights to keep and bear arms, and is therefore unconstitutional.

As an aside, may I suggest an avatar for you?:

 

Only our federal Congress can define wellness of regulation for the Militia of the United States; what is so difficult to understand about that?

 

The federal congress cannot make any law that infringes 'the peoples' right to keep and bear arms. The 'militia' referred to in the 2A IS 'the people'. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Simple, unless you have an agenda that requires unnecessary complication.

 

And I'm part of that well regulated militia. Too bad China didn't have
one during Tienanmen Square incident.

 

How did you reach your conclusion? Our federal Congress can prescribe wellness of regulation for the Militia of the United States.

 

First, decipher these terms as you intend them to mean in your postings:

"the Militia of the United States"
"prescribe wellness of regulation"

I take the former to mean 'the people', and the latter to mean 'determine the reasonable level of restriction' on their right to keep and bear arms. If my deciphering is accurate, and you take the 2A as the authors intended, then there is NO level of restriction that is constitutional. The 2A is clear and simple; "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That word, 'infringed', is a key word. It means to lessen, degrade, impede, etc... Therefore, to its literal meaning, ANY federal law that negatively impacts the people's ability to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional. Of course, congress DOES pass unconstitutional laws, and the 2A has not gone unaffected, but just because a law is unconstitutional does not mean it will (or should be) be challenged or overturned.

 

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws; it must be specifically enumerated or it doesn't exist if we have to quibble.

 

Okay Arnold Horshack. What is the answer?

Wait a minute! That's a Constitutional interpretation. I don't believe
it will be appreciated or accepted.

My dad started a well regulated militia when I was 6 years old.
That's when he taught me how to shoot a rifle. Of course I was
11 before I owned a gun, a Mossberg .410. I was a little put out
because my brother was 9 when he got his Remington
semi-auto .22 the same year.

 

I think it was just enumerated by your post that Congress does not control the entire militia, only those that are employed by the federal government.

 

You are still missing the point:

Wellness of regulation is the discipline prescribed by Congress.

 

I get that. When I was in the Texas Air National Guard the feds set the standards for my weight, physical fitness, ASVAB score requirements for my job, background checks, and the quality and quantity of training I received for my particular job. You are missing the point that the State National Guard units are only a part of the militia. The militia is the people. "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

On top of that, my state constitution states that all citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. I am going to keep and bear arms. Get over it.

 

The word "wellness" refers to physical and mental health. It has nothing to do with government or regulation. Invest in a dictionary.